Manningfilings 050619

Case 1:19-dm-00003-CMH Document 29 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 441
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, )

) 1-19-dm-00003
CHELSEA MANNING, )
)
Movant. )
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RELEASE WITNESS
Preliminary Statement
Chelsea Manning is recognized world-wide as a champion of the Free Press and open
government. In 2013, Ms. Manning, then an all-source intelligence analyst for the U.S. military,
was convicted at a United States Army court martial for disclosing classified information to the
public. Her reasons for making the 2010 disclosures of classified information involved her
inability to reconcile herself to the knowledge that the United States was engaging in, and
concealing, the true nature of modern asymmetric warfare. She took the decision to make those
disclosures entirely on her own, with the full knowledge that she was likely to suffer dearly as a
result. She was sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge. She
was confined under onerous conditions, including but not limited to prolonged solitary
confinement, leading U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez to classify isolation
exceeding 15 days as “cruel and inhumane treatment.” In 2017 her sentence was commuted by
then-President Barack Obama. She was released from prison in May, 2017.
Page 1 of 12
In early 2019, Ms. Manning was summoned to appear and give testimony before a grand
jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia. On principle, she refused to answer questions put
to her before the grand jury. As a result of her refusal, she was found in contempt by this Court,
and was ordered civilly confined until the term of the grand jury expired or such time as she
agreed to answer questions, thus “purging” her contempt.
She has been incarcerated since March 8, 2019. The direct and collateral consequences of
her confinement have been devastating, severe, and persistent. Nevertheless, her belief that her
participation in the Grand Jury investigation will at worst, function to undermine the
independence of the free press, and at a minimum, make her complicit in efforts to do so, grow
stronger with each loss she suffers. The only lawful purpose for her confinement is to coerce her
to give testimony. Because her confinement is not serving and will never serve any coercive
purpose, it has become punitive, and the Court must terminate the order of confinement.
Argument
 
The relevant question in the instant proceeding is not whether Ms. Manning had “just
cause” for her refusal to testify. Rather, the inquiry must be into whether her current confinement
is likely ever to lead Ms. Manning to testify before the Grand Jury. What little law there is in the
Fourth Circuit is unambiguous: If the witness can show by a preponderance of the evidence that
there is no reasonable possibility that she will testify, then continued confinement is
unconstitutional, and contrary to the mandate of 28 U.S.C. §1826.
The civil contempt sanction is one that may be imposed without the protections
afforded criminal defendants. This is because the confinement is conditioned upon the
Page 2 of 12
contemnor’s own conduct. Shillitani v. U.S., 86 S.Ct. 1531 (1966). Thus, under both the
common law governing the court’s traditional contempt powers, and its codification in 28
U.S.C. §1826, civil confinement is intended only to be coercive. “If a judge orders
continued confinement without regard to its coercive effect upon the contemnor, or as a
warning to others who might be tempted to violate their testimonial obligations, he has
converted the civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” Simkin v. U.S., 715 F.2d 34 (2d Cir.
1983) at 38. In the event that there is no possibility of purging contempt, either because
the grand jury has ended, or because the witness is uncoerceable, then the confinement
serves no further lawful purpose, and the witness must be released. 28 U.S.C. §1826,
Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966); Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89, 111
(2d Cir. 2006).
The recalcitrant witness statute sets 18 months as the maximum term of
confinement, but that is not to say that all confinement up through18 months is
definitionally coercive. Simkin, overruling the logic of United States v. Dien, 598 F,2d
743 (2d Cir. 1979)). Furthermore, although a long civil confinement does not in itself
constitute a due process violation, a witness is not required to demonstrate unusual
circumstances in order to show that confinement has lost its coercive impact. Sanchez v.
United States, 725 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1984). Returning directly to the legislative history of
the recalcitrant witness statute, we see in fact that “[a] court is free to conclude at any
time that further incarceration of a recalcitrant witness will not cause the witness to relent
and testify, and, upon such grounds, to release the witness from confinement.” Grand Jury
Reform: Hearings on H.R. 94 Before the Subcomm. On Immigration, Citizenship, and
Page 3 of 12
International Law of the House Comm on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 713 n. 1
(1977) (statement of Asst. Atty. Gen. Civiletti).
The burden rests with the contemnor to convince the judge of her intransigence,
and the district judge retains “virtually unreviewable discretion.” Nevertheless, all
relevant rulings have made clear that such deference can be extended “only if it appears
that the judge has assessed the likelihood of a coercive effect upon the particular
contemnor. There must be an individualized decision, rather than application of a
policy…” Simkin at 37. See also In re Cocilovo, 618 F.Supp. 1378 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); In re
Papadakis, 613 F.Supp. 109 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); U.S.v. Buck, U.S. v. Shakur, 1987 WL
15520 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); United States v. Whitehorn, 808 F.2d 836 (4th Cir. 1986); In re
Cueto, 443 F. Supp. 857 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). The judge’s virtually unreviewable discretion
therefore “detracts in no way from our duty to follow the clear pronouncements of a
higher court…[which] compels a finding” that a truly intransigent witness, “ready,
willing, and able to persist in [his] defiance,” be set free. In re Dorie Clay, 1985 WL
1977 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Several factors play into the individualized determination of a witness’s
intransigence. These include the length of confinement, the witness’s connection with the
activity under investigation and continued need for the witness’s unique evidence, the
articulated moral basis for the refusal, the witness’s perception of community support,
and the witness’s conduct and demeanor. These are factors that have been used as the
basis for judges’ individualized assessments, although the weight, or even the presence of
each factor in any given inquiry appears to be entirely at the discretion of the judge. See,
generally, In re Cueto, 443 F.Supp. 857 (S.D.N.Y.)(two women working for Episcopal
Page 4 of 12
Church released after ten months, based on “humane factors” as well as their unwavering
belief, supported by the church, that they were suffering religious persecution); In re
Dohrn, 560 F.Supp. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (Witness released despite Judge’s antipathy,
based on the intransigence of her beliefs and the diminished need for her cooperation);
Clay, supra, at 4, (Contemnor released based on her intransigence, despite the need for
her unique and relevant testimony: “To infer that a [grand jury resister] is likely to remain
silent … does not require a great leap of logic. That she is wrong is beside the point.” at
2.); Buck, supra, (contemnors’ motions granted prior to confinement based on the
strength of their convictions); Cocilovo, (contemnor released after ten months with no
indication that he would yield); In re Thomas, 614 F.Supp. 983 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)
(contemnor released based on her articulated principles, strengthened by her awareness of
“the collective disapproval that would follow a decision to testify.” at 984.”).
There are cases that say a mere assertion is insufficient, but these do not
countervail so much as confirm the underlying theory that the contemnor must in all
actuality be able to show that they are uncoerceable. Papadakis, supra, (Finding that the
contemnor’s desire to “obtain the fruits of his friends’ criminal activity,” however
ignoble, precluded the possibility of his ever testifying); In re Grand Jury Proceedings,
2001 WL 527401 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (release denied; sole evidence was contemnor’s “bald
assertion” that he would not cooperate); S.E.C. v. Princeton Economic International, Ltd.,
152 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (release denied because contemnor’s desperate and
disingenuous paper-shuffling convinced the Judge only that he was in fact susceptible to
the coercive effects of incarceration).
Page 5 of 12
Furthermore, unlike a criminal case in which a defendant might be persuaded that
they have run out of viable legal options, “judicial process is never truly ‘exhausted’ for a
civil contemnor because […] the Court has a continuing obligation to assess the efficacy
of confinement. [… ] There will thus never come a time for [a contemnor] where his only
remaining option is to cooperate.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 994 F. Supp. 2d 510,
519 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
The overwhelming majority of relevant law stems from the Second Circuit.
However, the Simkin/Sanchez rule has been endorsed and adopted by courts in the
The 1st, 3d, 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits. See In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 13 F.3d
459 (1st Cir. 1994); In re Impounded, 178 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 1999); United States v.
Whitehorn, et al, 808 F.2d 836 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Adams, 2012 WL
2953075 (N.D.W.V. 2012); United States v. Hallahan, 768 F.2d 754 (6th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Jones, 880 F.2d 987, 989 (7th Cir. 1989); Matter of Crededio, 759 F.2d
589, 592 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Clough, 946 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1991); In re
Grand Jury Proceedings, 877 F.2d 849 (11th Cir. 1989).
However counter-intuitive, the state of the law with respect to civil confinement is
clear. The sole lawful purpose of confinement is to exert a coercive effect upon a
recalcitrant witness. In the absence of a reasonable expectation of coercing testimony,
confinement has exceeded its lawful scope, and must be terminated.
This is the impasse at which we have arrived.
Chelsea Manning is known globally for being a person who acts on principle,
even at great risk and harm to herself. This is core to her identity, and she has quite
Page 6 of 12
publicly persisted in her various stances in the face of opprobrium, severe punishment,
and profound disruptions to her daily life, including her instant incarceration.
Ms. Manning has well-founded reasons to believe the subpoena issued to her is an
abuse of process, and may have been propounded on the basis of unlawful electronic
surveillance. She has litigated these issues, and believes the decisions of the District and
Circuit Courts denying her motions to quash, and denying that she has just cause for her
refusal to testify, are incorrect. But above and beyond these legal issues, she is convinced
that to cooperate with this grand jury would be a betrayal of her beliefs about the grand
jury process, and this grand jury process in particular. She is prepared to suffer the
consequences for her beliefs, and it should surprise nobody to find that she has the
courage of her convictions.
Upon filing her initial motion to quash, Ms. Manning issued a public statement
affirming that she would not cooperate with this or any other grand jury. Upon being
found in contempt, Ms. Manning reiterated that statement. She made these statements
prior to her confinement with the full knowledge that her liberty is precious, and that
being reincarcerated would likely cause and compound physical health issues related to
her recent surgery and mental health struggles stemming from her previous incarceration.
She took a very public decision, making herself accountable to her friends and political
community, with the full knowledge that her career as a writer and public speaker would
be radically disrupted. In spite of the imminent harm she faced, she made her position
clear: under no circumstances will she cooperate. After her appeal was denied by the
Fourth Circuit, she stated “While I miss home, they can continue to hold me in jail, with
all the harmful consequences that brings. I will not give up.” Press Release, April 22,
Page 7 of 12
2019. She made that statement after having already spent nearly two months in jail, and
suffering severe physical and emotional, as well as economic and professional harms.
As is made clear in Chelsea’s declaration, she is suffering severe physical,
emotional, and career consequences. But the severity of these negative impacts is
matched only by the strength of her commitment to her principles, and no amount of
suffering will change her mind. see Declaration of Chelsea Manning annexed hereto.
Given that the central inquiry here must be the strength of her conviction and the
likelihood that her testimony will be coerced, every case decided under the Shillitani/
Simkin precedent militates in favor of her release on this factor.
Ms. Manning has been well-supported by people here and around the world for
her decision. She is regarded by some as an international hero, a person of principle who
was willing to sacrifice everything in the public interest. The fact of her previous
incarceration was abhorrent to huge numbers of people who were outraged by the
government’s willingness to punish the disclosure, rather than the commission of war
crimes. She has become a figurehead of the movement for transgender equity. Amnesty
International, the ACLU, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and many other
organizations publicly stated their support for her and called for her release. She has been
written about sympathetically by scholars and the press. Her actions are viewed as noble
by widely-respected philosophers like Noam Chomsky, historians, historical figures such
as Daniel Ellsberg, and her many friends. Her reincarceration on the basis of this
subpoena is seen as retaliatory, and is felt as a deep wound by the millions of people
across the globe who fought for her release. Her incarceration also strengthens the
prevailing view that she is being unjustly targeted by the United States government, and
Page 8 of 12
it is understood as a sacrifice in the name of civil liberties, government transparency, and
the integrity of the free press. Her incarceration is understood by historical and legal
experts as part of a contribution to a long history of principled resistance to political and
press repression. See Cueto, supra, where the support of those people whose approval
most mattered to contemnors was deemed a significant factor for their release; Clay,
supra, in which the support of the contemnor’s community played a part in her release;
and a contemnor whose “status as a hero” militated against his further confinement.
Matter of Ford 615, F.Supp. 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Like those contemnors released on the
basis of their rigid unwillingness to cooperate, Ms. Manning is supported in her beliefs by
the people about whose opinion she cares. To agree to cooperate would be to betray her
own principles, and also her reputation.
At this point, given the sacrifices she has already made, her strong principles, her
strong and growing support community, and the disgrace attendant to her capitulation, it
is inconceivable that Chelsea Manning will ever change her mind about her refusal to
cooperate with the grand jury.
Despite having lost her relatively newfound liberty and nascent stability, Ms.
Manning has been steadfast in her silence. Even in the face of sympathetic reminders that
she may end her confinement by agreeing to testify she has been adamant in her resolve.
As set forth in her declaration, Ms. Manning has endured great psychological and
physical harm as a result of her confinement. Not only has she remained unwavering, her
commitment is reinforced by her suffering. That is, inasmuch as Ms. Manning believes
that her suffering is in the service of her convictions, her continued anguish is a painful
confirmation of her righteousness. Moreover, every fresh insult associated with her
Page 9 of 12
imprisonment serves only to vindicate her beliefs about the failures of the legal system to
comport with the government’s claims to justice.
Since the law requires an individualized assessment of a contemner’s
susceptibility to coercion, denials of motions for release have been made on the basis of
the contemner’s failure to convince the court that confinement is no longer coercive. For
example, some contemnors appear to submit no more than a bare claim, unsupported by
evidence, that they will not cooperate. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 2001 WL 527401
(E.D.N.Y. 2001). In another case, release was denied due to the fact that his “decision not
to testify [appeared] not to be a matter of absolute principle, but a reflection of [his] view
that it is not yet in his personal interest to testify.” United States v. Salerno, 632 F.Supp.
529 ( S.D.N.Y. 1986). Release has been denied where a contemnor’s desperation resulted
in profligate and ever-stranger requests for relief, leading the Court to conclude that
confinement was in fact having precisely the desired effect. S.E.C. v. Princeton Economic
International, Ltd, 152 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
On the other hand, where a moral basis for the refusal was clearly articulated, the
Court determined that release was no less than mandatory under the law, notwithstanding
the judge’s frustration, which he expressed at great length, at what he considered a
perverse outcome. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 994 F.Supp 2d 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), see
also In re Duran, No. 12-GJ-149, 2014 WL 7140454 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 12, 2014).
Ms. Manning’s articulated moral reasons for her refusal to testify, supported by
the many letters and affidavits of her friends, family, supporters, and those who know her
in a professional capacity, stand in stark contrast to the self-serving, or unsupported
statements of a contemnor who merely seeks the most expedient route home. As should
Page 10 of 12
be clear from her declaration and those of her supporters, she is a deeply principled
woman, who has already suffered, and expects to continue to suffer in various ways, as a
result of standing by her principles. Whatever one may make of her beliefs, it is evident
that they are well-developed, robust, and sincerely held. She will cleave to them as her
most trustworthy touchstone.
Conclusion
As Ms. Manning’s resolve not to testify has been unwavering, and as her moral
conviction, for which she is deservedly renowned, has become only more developed since her
confinement, her incarceration is no longer serving its coercive purpose. For that reason, the
motion should be granted in its entirety.
Respectfully Submitted,
By Counsel
 
 
Dated: May 5, 2019
/s/ Moira Meltzer-Cohen

MOIRA MELTZER-COHEN
(pro hac vice)
277 Broadway, Suite 1501
New York, NY 10007
347-248-6771
mo_at_law@protonmail.com
/s/ Sandra Freeman

SANDRA C. FREEMAN (VSB# 78499)
5023 W. 120th Avenue, #280
Broomfield, Colorado 80020
720-593-9004
sandra.c.freeman@protonmail.com
Page 11 of 12
/s/ Chris Leibig

CHRISTOPHER LEIBIG (VSB#40594)
114 N. Alfred Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
703-683-4310
chris@chrisleibiglaw.com
/s/ Vincent J. Ward

VINCENT J. WARD
(pro hac vice pending)
Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward,
P.A
20 First Plaza, Suite 700
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
505-842-9960
vjw@fbdlaw.com
Page 12 of 12
Case 1:19-dm-00003-CMH Document 29-1 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 453
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
In re: Grand Jury Subpoena,)

) DECLARATION
CHELSEA MANNING, )
) 19-1287-cv
Subpoenaed Party. )
___________________________)
1. My name is Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. I am competent to be a witness, and I
possess personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.
2. Currently I am confined at the Alexandria Detention Center (“ADC”), in Alexandria,
Virginia, following a finding of civil contempt on March 8, 2019, for refusing to
cooperate in a grand jury investigation that I believe relates to events already
disclosed in exhaustive testimony in 2013, including the extent of my knowledge.
3. Initially, after arriving at ADC, the jail placed me in Administrative Segregation
(“adseg”) status, despite the stated concerns of myself and my legal representatives
regarding the effects of prolonged isolation compounding the trauma I suffered in a
year of solitary confinement during my previous time in confinement. I stayed on
adseg for 28 days, without any misbehavior or ill will on my or anyone else’s part to
rationalize such isolation. This isolation caused extraordinary pain for me.
4. While in adseg, I suffered many of the ill effects of prolonged isolation as described
by former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez. For instance,
consistent with the research of former Harvard Medical School professor Stuart
Grassian, I experienced difficulty keeping attention on anything, sometimes referred
to as a “dissociative stupor.” Thinking and concentrating get harder. Anxiety,
Page 1 of 8
frustration with minor things, irritation, and a spiraling inability to tolerate each
symptom take hold. At one point I started feeling ill during a short visit in a non-
contact visit booth while struggling to have even a normal conversation. After weeks
of under-stimulation, I became nauseated with vertigo and vomited on the floor,
ending my visit prematurely. Such symptoms make up what Grassian describes as a
special psychiatric syndrome caused by prolonged solitary confinement. Many of the
effects last permanently after only fifteen (15) days of isolation.
5. After public outcry and pressure, the ADC released me into general population
(“GP”) after 28 days of isolation.
6. After two months of confinement, and using every legal mechanism available so far, I
can - without any hesitation - state that nothing that will convince me to testify
before this or any other grand jury for that matter. This experience so far only proves
my long held belief that grand juries are simply outdated tools used by the federal
government to harass and disrupt political opponents and activists in fishing
expeditions. Without committing a federal crime, and after exhaustive testimony at a
trial several years ago, I am again ripped from my life by a vindictive and politically-
motivated investigation and prosecution. The way I am being treated proves what a
corrupt and abusive tool the grand jury truly is. With each passing day my
disappointment and frustration grow, but so too do my commitments to doing the
right thing and continuing to refuse to submit.
7. My decision not to testify before grand juries is rooted in the study of history and
philosophical principles. Many times in this nation’s history, people who speak out or
express dissent against the government face disproportionate repression. One of the
Page 2 of 8
most common tools to silence dissent, the grand jury, attempts to sow distrust within
activists’ organizations and communities through secrecy and compelling exhaustive
and redundant testimony aimed at identifying other members of that community.
8. I understand that this grand jury related to my disclosures of classified and
unclassified but sensitive information and records in 2010. I acted alone in these
disclosures. The government is still preoccupied with punishing me, despite a court-
martial, sentence, and presidential commutation nearly two years ago. This can be
seen in statements and actions by several administration officials, especially the
current secretary of state, who threatened Harvard University over a low-paid
speaking engagement in 2017, when he was Director of Central Intelligence. This
speaks compellingly to my rationale for both my disclosures, for which I already
served time, and my present refusal to cooperate with an increasingly frightening and
untrustworthy government. Let me state clearly, again, that my actions were my own.
9. I believe my principles allow me to focus on helping others, and to challenge the use
of power to coerce or manipulate people. Such coercive power forms what I define as
“violence,” and the “threat of violence” which powerful institutions attempt to
accumulate to obtain more power.
10. I do not believe, nor do I possess any reasonable evidence to believe that participating
in this grand jury could lead to any new theories of criminal liability for any person. I
took responsibility for my actions over six years ago. I find it difficult to comprehend
that the Department of Justice believes that my redundant testimony could actually
provide any value to an investigation. Their stated reasons appear disingenuous at
best and outright malicious at worst. The government’s theories contradict not only
Page 3 of 8
my testimony, but the forensic evidence the military possesses. Therefore, I suspect
they are simply interested in previewing my potential testimony as a defense witness,
and attempting to undermine my testimony without the benefit of reviewing forensic
evidence. This justifies my theory that participating in this investigation functions
simply to abuse the justice system for political ends.
11. I believe this grand jury seeks to undermine the integrity of public discourse with the
aim of punishing those who expose any serious, ongoing, and systemic abuses of
power by this government, as well as the rest of the international community.
Therefore, participating in this fishing expedition - which potentially exposes other
innocent people to the grand jury process - would constitute an unjustifiable and
unethical action. Now, after sustaining serious psychological injury from my current
confinement, I don’t wish to expose any other person to the trauma and exhaustion of
civil contempt or other forms of prison or coercion.
12. In jail at ADC, I try every day to maintain my physical, mental, and intellectual
capacities, as well as some modicum of human dignity. I live a quiet social life in a
housing unit that holds a dozen people, who rotate frequently. I try to occupy myself
with crossword and sudoku puzzles in the absence of good reading material. I try to
stay positive despite the aftermath of isolation and the knowledge that my life once
again is put on hold for a few more years, potentially. With limited books, I read what
I can, though most are books that are either already read by me or are simply bad. I
am re-accustomed to the intrusion and lack of privacy of frequent searches and heavy
surveillance.
Page 4 of 8
13. I arrived at ADC with concerns and anxiety about my physical health, particularly so
soon after gender confirmation surgery in October. My post-surgery regimen requires
delicate and regular self-care at least twice daily, including the use of anti-bacterial
soap and dilators. Otherwise, I risk serious medical complications, including
permanent injury or deadly infections. I worry about dilating in an environment rife
with poor hygiene and with limited time and no privacy. I worry about seeing medical
professionals with knowledge about post-operative care if complications develop,
which I have reason to think has already happened. I worry about regular access to
daily hormones. Unfortunately, despite initial assurances by jail and U.S. Marshal
Service (“U.S.M.S.”) officials, such efforts normally come slower and are very
limited. It appears that I have already developed some complications during my stay
at ADC. Medical staff acknowledges they lack expertise to examine or assist me
appropriately, In response, I requested outside professionals at my own expense over
three weeks ago. Despite this, I remain unseen by a professional competent to treat
me. Every passing day further complicates my medical care and health, exposing me
to permanent, intractable complications. The intrinsic bureaucracy and formality of
ADC and USMS policy risks me to permanent harm. I do not know how serious these
complications are, but I may need costly reparative surgery upon my release, causing
me even more permanent injury and psychological harm, not to mention the
expensive medical bills.
14. In an ideal world, agreeing to cooperate would avoid this situation, however, this
government abuses the grand jury process, and forces me to choose between an
Page 5 of 8
unethical decision and suffering intimate and permanent consequences for doing the
right thing. I am not willing to compromise for my own physical benefit.
15. This decision comes at an overwhelming cost, My physical and mental health
deteriorate rapidly in conditions normally reserved for short term confinement. I am
almost entirely without sunlight. My skin regularly breaks out from bacterial
infections. I gain weight due to poor nutrition, currently at nearly twenty pounds since
March.
16. Sleep and concentration remain difficult. Mental health access remains limited,
without access to comprehensive treatment for complex post-traumatic stress —
stemming in part from previous confinement conditions.
17. My business now falters, without me able to appear at speaking engagements or
professional consultations. I recently laid off a valuable and trusted employee.
Numerous existing contracts remain vulnerable, likely needing renegotiation or
outright cancellation. My friends and colleagues suffer from the impact of my
absence, causing me to worry endlessly about their health and well being. I missed
the premier event of a documentary about my commutation in which dozens of my
friends reunited afterward.
18. I sometimes see visitors, but only in a non-contact booth, with inches of glass
between us. This makes visitation uncomfortable, surreal, and saddening.
19. I receive between dozens and several hundred letters a day. I lack the resources or
time to respond to even a small fraction of these. The impact on my friends and
supporters feels overwhelming and makes me feel lonely.
Page 6 of 8
20. I receive enormous support from all around the world. My family and close friends all
support me and express their pride of me. It’s emotionally overwhelming sometimes
to see their unwavering generosity. I receive warmth and strength from colleagues,
educators, lawyers, diplomats, activists, factory workers, veterans, journalists, union
leaders, store clerks, gardeners, chefs, airplane pilots, and politicians from all across
the U.S. and the world at large, every class, culture, and age imaginable.
21. Despite the heartbreak and hardship, cooperation with this grand jury is simply not an
option. Doing so would mean throwing away all of my principles, accomplishments,
sacrifices, and erase decades of my reputation - an obvious impossibility.
22. As before, I cannot regain the lost time - which may again extend to years. Repairing
the damage to my relationships and both my physical and mental health might never
come to pass. Whatever one might make of my principles and decisions, I shall
continue to make hard choices and sacrifices rather than relinquish my ethical
positions in exchange for mere trinkets of personal gain or self-pleasure in the form of
being released.
23. Over the past decade, I grappled with bouts of depression. I can think of nothing that
could exacerbate those struggles more than pretending to live as someone I am not
once again, and turning my back on everything I care about and fight for. Jail, and
prison, exist as an archaic institution hiding the basest stream of dehumanizing and
humiliating behaviors by the government — a trail of mounting loss and pain. Here,
behind the event horizon, I remain certain that losing the approval, trust, and
acceptance of my friends, family, and supporters would make this situation worse.
Page 7 of 8
24. I wish to return home. I want to return to my work — writing, speaking, consulting,
and teaching. The idea I hold the keys to my own cell is an absurd one, as I face the
prospect of suffering either way due to this unnecessary and punitive subpoena: I can
either go to jail or betray my principles. The latter exists as a much worse prison than
the government can construct.
25. I digress a bit - but the point is, I’m not going to change my mind. Not now, not ever.
So be it.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Dated: May 5, 2019

Alexandria, VA
Page 8 of 8
May 6, 2019
Dear District Judge Claude M. Hilton,
My name is Trevor Timm, I am the executive director of Freedom of the Press

Foundation, a non-profit that supports journalists and whistleblowers. I have known
Chelsea Manning personally for several years.
I know Chelsea to be a principled, passionate, extraordinary person. She has decided

to take a principled stand in refusing to testify in front of a grand jury, and I am
confident she will not change her mind. I respectfully ask that the court release her
now that she has spent more than two months behind bars.
Chelsea has already suffered immensely in both military and federal detention. Over
250 law professors described the military’s treatment of her before her trial in 2013
as “torture.” She served seven years in prison after her trial, under the longest
sentence ever for a defendant accused of giving information to journalists or
publishers. She then was subject to prolonged periods in solitary confinement,
which severely affected her mental health.
I am convinced that, despite Chelsea’s fear in going back to prison, she is committed
to refusing to testify to the grand jury on the basis of her beliefs. She is prepared to
remain in prison for the duration of the grand jury, if that was called for.
She does not deserve that. It will harm her mentally and physically, but it will not
change her decision. I respectfully ask that you release her, so that she can move on
with her life and live in peace.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Trevor Timm
Executive Director
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Freedom of the Press Foundation 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite E731 San Francisco, CA 94102
Website: https://freedom.press Twitter: @FreedomOfPress Email: info@freedom.press

May 5, 2019
Dear Honorable Judge Hilton,
My name is Evan Greer. I am the Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, a civil liberties
non-profit with more than 2 million members nationwide, and I write regularly for
Washington Post, The Guardian, TIME, and Newsweek. I am also a friend of Contemnor,
Chelsea Manning, and spoke to her regularly on the phone during her incarceration at
Fort Leavenworth.
I am writing to ask that you release Ms. Manning. Knowing the contemnor well, I can tell
you with complete confidence that no amount of suffering or confinement will compel
her to compromise her strongly held beliefs. She has made public her views about the
Grand Jury process clear long before she was subpoenaed, and has consistently stated
her principled objection to testifying in such a setting.
During her previous incarceration at Leavenworth, I heard first hand about the
immense suffering Chelsea experienced due to her confinement and lack of access to
medically recommended gender related health care. As has been widely reported, she
attempted twice to take her own life. I believe strongly that continuing to incarcerate
her serves no purpose other than to cause her unjust and unreasonable suffering.
Regardless of what you believe about her actions or convictions, the contemnor has a
consistent and well documented track record of standing up for her beliefs, even when
faced with potential life imprisonment or other severe punishment. She is one of the
most ethically consistent and principled people I know. There is no number of days in a
cell that will change her mind. But each day causes her more undue pain and suffering.
I hope you will take this information into consideration and release Chelsea Manning.
Continuing to imprison her will not compel her to acquiesce to a demand that she
perceives to be unjust.
Best,
Evan Greer
Deputy Director
Fight for the Future
To Hon. Claude M. Hilton

United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia
May 5, 2019
Judge Hilton,
My name is Janus Rose, and I am writing to urge you to release Chelsea Manning from confinement. I
am a close personal friend of Chelsea. I corresponded with her during her incarceration at U.S.D.B.
Fort Leavenworth, and have spent significant time with her since her release in May 2017.
During this period, I have come to know Chelsea as a woman of unshakable convictions. I can not
think of anyone I’ve met more stubbornly devoted to their principles. Chelsea and I have disagreed on
many occasions, and in every instance I’ve come to the same conclusion: once Chelsea decides to take
principled action, there is nothing anyone can say or do to convince her otherwise, even if it ultimately
proves detrimental to her own well-being or self-interest.
By refusing to answer questions before a grand jury, Chelsea has again chosen to stand for her beliefs.
In private and public comments, she has repeatedly stated that she objects to the grand jury system, and
that no amount of imprisonment will persuade her to testify. After being held in contempt on March 8th,
Chelsea said she “will not comply with this, or any other grand jury.” On April 22nd, after more than a
month of imprisonment at William Truesdale Detention Center, and following the 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals denial of her motion for release on bail, she again stated: “I don’t have anything to contribute
to this, or any other grand jury […] I will not give up.”
As Chelsea’s friend, I can confidently say that this stance is consistent with her character. I have no
reason to believe further confinement will change her mind. Therefore, given that her confinement is
meant to be coercive and not punitive, I urge you to order Chelsea released, as her continued
imprisonment serves no legitimate purpose.
Thank you,
Janus Cassandra Rose

Dear Honorable Judge Hilton,
My name is Maya Little and I have gotten to know Chelsea Manning personally over
the last year. I am writing to you today because I am a friend and also an admirer of
her courage, resilience, and willingness to be punished for her beliefs. Chelsea
describes herself as a political prisoner or former political prisoner because she was
literally imprisoned for 7 years, partly in solitary confinement for her political beliefs.
Even though the court may not agree with her beliefs, I have admired that she will stick
by her beliefs through I believe anything and any punishment inflicted on her. I am
writing to you today because I believe that regardless of the court’s understanding of
Chelsea, I know she will never break from her principles. I know that she cannot be
compelled, even by jail time, to participate in something she considers against the very
principles upon which she has based her life since at least 2010. The court may
consider this strange or not agree with Chelsea’s principles but I ask the court to
consider that there is no purpose in keeping Chelsea jailed, knowing that she will never
break these principles and testify.
I first met Chelsea in March, 2018. She spoke at a rally against white supremacy and
against American imperialism. She spoke of the time she spent in jail between 2010
and 2017 and how being placed in solitary confinement resulted in extreme trauma and
mental anguish. Chelsea had 7 years of her life taken away and even though she had
just been out for year she made it clear she was fully committed to struggling against
what she believes are attempts by courts to silence her and silence criticism of the
United States military. Every day she is in jail myself and other friends and fellow
activists are utterly lost for a community leader and warm, compassionate friend. We
admire her bravery, we know she will never give in, but we know she is undergoing
extremely torturous conditions and punishment for her unwillingness to testify and that
she will continue to. When Chelsea was in solitary confinement last month she threw
up from over-stimulation the first time she visited face to face with some friends. By
continuing to keep her imprisoned the court is only inflicting further mental trauma on
Chelsea which will lead to nothing.
By keeping Chelsea jailed the court is also depriving Chelsea’s friends, fellow activists,
community, and the many queer and trans people who look up to her of a mentor and
community activist. Chelsea is one of the most brilliant and persistent free speech and
LGBTQ rights activists I know. I have personally watched how her pride in her identity
and service to others through speaking events has led to greater self-confidence and
courage among LGBTQ youth who have been impacted by her message. By keeping
Chelsea jailed, the LGBTQ community is being deprived of a leader in advocating for
our rights and our safety. The court may not agree with Chelsea’s stances but she is
an advocate for free speech and government transparency. Even if it’s not within your
honor’s discretion to praise Chelsea for her actions, I believe an American court of law
should be able to appreciate these principles and know that we need all kinds of
activists to advocate for them. Please release Chelsea from imprisonment. I believe
keeping her imprisoned will serve no purpose other than to draw out traumatic
experiences for Chelsea and it will not further the court’s interests in any way.
Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
Maya Little

Manningfilings 050619

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manningfilings 050619

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-dm-00003-CMH Document 29 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 441

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, )

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RELEASE WITNESS

agreed to answer questions, thus “purging” her contempt.

unconstitutional, and contrary to the mandate of 28 U.S.C. §1826.

(2d Cir. 2006).

The recalcitrant witness statute sets 18 months as the maximum term of

constitute a due process violation, a witness is not required to demonstrate unusual

Reform: Hearings on H.R. 94 Before the Subcomm. On Immigration, Citizenship, and

(1977) (statement of Asst. Atty. Gen. Civiletti).

contemnor. There must be an individualized decision, rather than application of a

higher court…[which] compels a finding” that a truly intransigent witness, “ready,

1977 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

Several factors play into the individualized determination of a witness’s

(contemnor released based on her articulated principles, strengthened by her awareness of

“the collective disapproval that would follow a decision to testify.” at 984.”).

the coercive effects of incarceration).

Furthermore, unlike a criminal case in which a defendant might be persuaded that

remaining option is to cooperate.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 994 F. Supp. 2d 510,

519 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

Grand Jury Proceedings, 877 F.2d 849 (11th Cir. 1989).

recalcitrant witness. In the absence of a reasonable expectation of coercing testimony,

confinement has exceeded its lawful scope, and must be terminated.

This is the impasse at which we have arrived.

courage of her convictions.

As is made clear in Chelsea’s declaration, she is suffering severe physical,

Simkin precedent militates in favor of her release on this factor.

by widely-respected philosophers like Noam Chomsky, historians, historical figures such

it is understood as a sacrifice in the name of civil liberties, government transparency, and

experts as part of a contribution to a long history of principled resistance to political and

own principles, and also her reputation.

cooperate with the grand jury.

comport with the government’s claims to justice.

Since the law requires an individualized assessment of a contemner’s

International, Ltd, 152 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

the judge’s frustration, which he expressed at great length, at what he considered a

in a professional capacity, stand in stark contrast to the self-serving, or unsupported

most trustworthy touchstone.

motion should be granted in its entirety.

Dated: May 5, 2019

/s/ Moira Meltzer-Cohen

/s/ Sandra Freeman

/s/ Chris Leibig

/s/ Vincent J. Ward

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

In re: Grand Jury Subpoena,)

1. My name is Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. I am competent to be a witness, and I

possess personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.

2. Currently I am confined at the Alexandria Detention Center (“ADC”), in Alexandria,

Virginia, following a finding of civil contempt on March 8, 2019, for refusing to

cooperate in a grand jury investigation that I believe relates to events already

disclosed in exhaustive testimony in 2013, including the extent of my knowledge.

3. Initially, after arriving at ADC, the jail placed me in Administrative Segregation

regarding the effects of prolonged isolation compounding the trauma I suffered in a

year of solitary confinement during my previous time in confinement. I stayed on

Grassian, I experienced difficulty keeping attention on anything, sometimes referred

to as a “dissociative stupor.” Thinking and concentrating get harder. Anxiety,

of under-stimulation, I became nauseated with vertigo and vomited on the floor,

ending my visit prematurely. Such symptoms make up what Grassian describes as a

special psychiatric syndrome caused by prolonged solitary confinement. Many of the

effects last permanently after only fifteen (15) days of isolation.

(“GP”) after 28 days of isolation.

Website: https://freedom.press Twitter: @FreedomOfPress Email: info@freedom.press